Fair and balanced

[RobertGoldberg]

Please Read This 954!

> Please don't read this, Robert!
>
> > The worst news on TV. It's the taling points of the RNC.
>
> > Nothing more. The most Unfair & Unbalanced news there is.
>
> > We Opine, You Recline.
>
> You libs LOVE to use the term talking points.
>
> How about NPR and AAR, which get their scripts
> express-mailed from DNC and CPUSA?
>
> ;-)
>
> I don't expect a response from you, Robert. You've
> been very insulting lately, so I don't want one.
>
> But I won't insult you.
>
> You'll just have to imagine what I'm thinking
> -- and how people perceive your nasty remarks.
>


AAR doesn't make any bones about who they are. They don't try and hide their bias unilke Fox which goes to great length to make people think they are fair and balanced.

You've done plenty of insulting 954. Remember your posts to Branson? Now you think you can take the high ground? You reap what you've sown.



<P ID="signature">______________
FOX News does NOT speak for me. Here's where I speak for myself http://pages.sbcglobal.net/rgold770/JewsandIsrael.html</P>

 

[954]

Re: Not the same

> > ABC and NBC originally were the NBC red channel and NBC
> blue
> > channel. (Before my time, so I'm not sure which.)
>
> This was in network radio, prior to 1941, when the Justic
> Department ordered RCA to divest one of its two networks.
> The terms Red Network and Blue Network were not used
> publicly before the divestiture when Edward J. Noble, owner
> of LifeSavers, started calling the network he acquired the
> Blue Network (later ABC). The terms were used by network
> and AT&T engineers - on the system maps, the network RCA
> acquired in 1926 from AT&T and fed by WEAF (now WFAN) was
> colored red and the network fed by Westinhouse's WJZ (now
> WABC) over Western Union lines was colored Blue. The terms
> were also used on rate cards prepared for advertisers. NBC
> offered two "basic" line-ups of stations plus supplementary
> stations which took programs from either or both networks
> and which advertisers could add to either set of basic
> stations. Red and Blue did not have same political meanings
> (Red indicated Communists, not Republicans) and neither

That's why I think the red/blue assignment today is funny.
It's backwards!

> line-up was politically oriented.

Never suggested it was. It was just colors.

> The Blue network had the
> weaker line-up of stations. NBC used it to test new shows
> which could be moved to the stronger Blue Network, for shows
> produced by advertisers with less money to spend and for
> less popular cultural and public affairs programming. This
> included broadcasts by various news "commentators," each of
> whom presented his own take on the news from his own
> particular viewpoint (the only one of this type still left
> is Paul Harvey).

And he's the most popular!<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Not the same

> The terms were used by network
> and AT&T engineers - on the system maps, the network RCA
> acquired in 1926 from AT&T and fed by WEAF (now WFAN) was
> colored red and the network fed by Westinhouse's WJZ (now
> WABC) over Western Union lines was colored Blue. The terms
> were also used on rate cards prepared for advertisers.

On several newsreels, you can clearly see radio network microphones, including one for NBC, one for CBS, one (or more) for a prominent local station, one labeled Mutual or MBS, -and- one labeled simply "Blue." You can see it in FDR's various war speeches, so the public must have been aware of the "Blue" network in addition to engineers and advertisers.

 

[gr8oldies]

OK, guys, here's what I want to know. Leave all the analysis programs out of the equation. When Laurie Dhue reads the headlines, please tell me exactly where the "bias" is.

Anyone with any business sense would have known that there was a hole a mile wide for a news channel that wouldn't be percieved as having a liberal bias. If some of you got your way and FNC was removed from the equation, or had to, by law call themselves the "Republican Propaganda Channel" do you think anyone would convert from conservatism to liberalism? Isn't taht what all the complaining is about..that these "dumb people" are being "propagandized" and if there was nothing but the NYT/WP/ABC/CBS/NBC all these people would "see the light" and vote Democratic?

 

[mwebster]

Re: Not the same

Yes, after the decision came down forcing the diverstiture NBC split the operations of the two networks prior to arranging a sale and started using the Blue name. Newsreels from the early and mid 40's showed microphones with the Blue flag. Prior to that, they mic flags just said NBC. And at the end of programs, on either network, the announcer tag was "This is NBC, the National Broadcasting Company" (followed by the chimes). While NBC ran a network duopoly, they did identify the networks on-air or in public promotions as "NBC (Red)(Blue)" or "This is the (Red)(Blue) Network of the National Broadcasting Company - contrary to a radio legend about a confused announcer in Chicago who was thrown a cue and forget which network he was feeding and supposedly said "This is either the Red or the Blue network of the National Broadcasting Company."

>
> On several newsreels, you can clearly see radio network
> microphones, including one for NBC, one for CBS, one (or
> more) for a prominent local station, one labeled Mutual or
> MBS, -and- one labeled simply "Blue." You can see it in
> FDR's various war speeches, so the public must have been
> aware of the "Blue" network in addition to engineers and
> advertisers.
>

 

[robmidmi]

Fair and balanced?

From The Herald-Times, Bloomington, Indiana:

Bloomington native reports the news
Commentary

by Mike Leonard
Hoosier Times columnist
October 2, 2005

(snip)

The University of Michigan graduate said the gist of his address will focus on how the changing mood of the country has driven news coverage to be more critical of the administration. "I don't want to say the media always follow the weather vane of public opinion, but in any administration there is an accumulative effect and the particular circumstances of the past five years have driven the media to examine issues more critically than was the case early on," he said.

When asked whether he would have had that opportunity while working at Fox, Shuster laughed, remained silent for a pregnant pause and said, "No. The answer is no."

He went on to recount his six-year tenure at Fox. "At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton)," Shuster said. "I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.

"With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing," he said.

"Editorially, I had issues with story selection," Shuster went on. "But the bigger issue was that there wasn't a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn't care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that."

(snip)

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/02/column.1002-SH-A3_CMK35541.sto

> I always enjoy this board, but looking over a lot of the
> posts below, it seems that some talk hosts misinterpret the
> Fox News line of "Fair and Balanced." That's a big sticking
> point for people who consider themselves progressives. They
> seem to believe that the statement itself is hypocritical,
> which ties into the progressive (left-wing liberal?) notion
> that they're honest about their insecurities and lifestyles
> while conservatives (right-wing extremeists?) are just as
> insecure and bizarre as they are but certainly won't admit
> it and indeed try to cover it up. Yet when I occasionally
> watch Fox News (I only have time for Brit Hume's and Shepard
> Smith's shows) the network really seems to try to include
> the other side's statements in news stories. Aren't we all
> supposed to be doing that? Yet I get AP stories (and other
> news services' stories) every day for the morning drive show
> that don't bother to include the "fair and balanced" other
> side of the stories! There are stories I get daily when I
> wonder if the AP reporters ever took Journalism 101. "Fair
> and balanced" should be a mantra for all news people,
> shouldn't it?
>
> By the way, don't you think it's time for progressives to
> drop the now-seven-year-old notion that it's working to
> their advantage to try to expose conservatives as being
> hypocrites? I think progressives should point to the truth:
> liberals are edgy social and moral risk-takers by definition
> who want to shake things up all the time, while
> conservatives by definition are boring because they want to
> slow down the pace of change or perhaps even stop it. The
> risk-taker notion will at least excite the college and
> potential-young-Democrat crowd.

 

[dampier]

> OK, guys, here's what I want to know. Leave all the analysis
> programs out of the equation. When Laurie Dhue reads the
> headlines, please tell me exactly where the "bias" is.

When Fox is doing "real news," the only bias evident is in story selection. One great current example is the relentless focus FNC has on immigration issues and the nutty "Minutemen" running around in the border states to supposedly keep America safe from those Mexican terrorists.

Nobody but Fox dwells endlessly on this story. It's not covered in the newspapers I see, nor are any of the other news outlets bothering with it. The immigration issue is one of the hot buttons on the Fox agenda. Another great example was the UN Oil for Food scandal. Nobody spent as much airtime on this story at the expense of the far greater scandal going on with billions missing in Iraq, but FNC was there to bash the UN (and even took out full page ads in major newspapers promoting it).

What gets reported as headlines breaks into two categories: crime drama and politics. The latter generally goes hand and hand with the Ailes memo of the day about what stories get prominence each day. You'll hear Fox's own talking points repeated over and over again, starting with the morning Froot Loops on Fox 'n Friends, and then right into Cavuto, Gibson, Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, and the Fox Sheep that turn up in the audience for Dayside.

When doing what Hannity likes to call "perspective" Fox will usually go to one of their on-staff talking heads, almost always from a conservative think tank, policy institute, print media or consultant (and never do full disclosure) or one of their anchors (especially Hume) to discuss what it all means. If it's something negative about the current administration, the perspective will ALWAYS be to evoke the name of Bill Clinton or Democrats in an effort to find something remotely comparable in order to diminish its impact. If it's something positive about the current administration, Fox will trumpet it and then make reference to how "the Democrats" will somehow twist it into a negative.

This morning, we had an illustration of that during the breaking news that Bush had chosen a new nominee for the Supreme Court. Brit Hume suggested that this would drive Democrats crazy and that viewers could expect to see Democratic senators demanding documents (and then invoked Clinton nominees) and then pelting her with questions.

During primetime, Fox viewers who saw one of the Fox blondes reading the headlines will now be told what it all means and get their positioning courtesy of the opinion shows. Bill O'Reilly implies The Factor is the only place to get the "no spin" truth on every story.

Sometimes I have to wonder if people can actually suggest Fox is anything beyond a propaganda network for conservatives with a straight face. Brit Hume spent countless hours lashing the last president while defending the current one with a litany of excuses and "perspective." This has been true of all of their hosts.

It comes as no surprise to anyone who has witnessed the travesty that is Dayside, which should be called Lopside. If someone confessed to be a progressive in that audience, you know there will be a stoning in the studio parking lot after the show. Let's reflect on a few of Fox's fair and balanced remarks that they chose to post from their "diverse" audience opinion:

"President Bush needs to give us a Supreme Court nominee who will uphold our Constitution rather than make decisions based on political correctness, or what other countries think!"

"I wonder if Kennedy thinks he has any integrity with the public. We do NOT have short memories!"

"Already Democrats and their special interests are saying Bush needs to be a uniter and to " seek a census with the democrats! We need to remind the Democrats, they have lost every election for years and the Republicans have won and therefore get to decide whom they want."

"I heard a guest on your program say that President Bush will be a divider if he does not nominate someone the liberals want. Why would the liberals not be the dividers if they do not vote on President Bush's nominee?"

Your mission - find the diversity there. Those were all posted on their website.

> Anyone with any business sense would have known that there
> was a hole a mile wide for a news channel that wouldn't be
> percieved as having a liberal bias. If some of you got your
> way and FNC was removed from the equation, or had to, by law
> call themselves the "Republican Propaganda Channel" do you
> think anyone would convert from conservatism to liberalism?

I haven't seen anyone advocate that Fox News needs to be shut down or labeled. I think the campaign to monitor, catalog, and report on specific instances of their bias and report that to the viewing public allows them to make an informed choice as to where they want to turn for "news." If they want slanted news, let em watch Fox. Clearly, the campaign to do this is more than enough to upset Bill O'Reilly who regularly lashes out at mediamatters, which is but one organization that has decided to call out the bias. The very fact that they are not permitted to control the medium, the message, and the opposing viewpoint (the barely visible Colmes, the defender of Clarence Thomas Juan Williams, etc.) is something new, which is exactly why they rail against it and AAR.

 

[coolidge]

> When Fox is doing "real news," the only bias evident is in
> story selection.

Selection bias, of course, is a reality for every single news source on Earth. Once again, though, we see with some that this is only an issue when discussing one network in particular.

 

[coolidge]

Re: Keep Cool

> Good answer. Good reason to Keep Cool With Coolidge!
>
> (That was a 1924 Republican campaign slogan.)


Woman at dinner party sitting next to Pres. Coolidge: "I have a bet that I can get at least three words of conversation from you."

Coolidge: "You lose."

Obviously not a man well suited for the radio business.

 

[Les]

> One great current example is the
> relentless focus FNC has on immigration issues and the nutty
> "Minutemen" running around in the border states to
> supposedly keep America safe from those Mexican terrorists.
>
> Nobody but Fox dwells endlessly on this story. It's not
> covered in the newspapers I see, nor are any of the other
> news outlets bothering with it.


Not trying to provoke argument, so please accept that which follows
at face value:

I don't think there is any universal answer, but each of us may have
our own answer; an answer that is accurate for oneself but onself ONLY.
I'll keep mine to myself, thank you.

Whether FNC is exhibiting bias through the exposure of this subject
(or any given subject) is a function of what any partular listener
is interested in. There are many who feel the whole immigration
issue IS important and to them keeping up with developments is
essential. In their eyes (ears?) FNC is being fair. But, also
to them the minimization or ignoring of the subject by other
outlets constitutes outrageous bias.

Somebody who really doesn't care about a heavy influx of immigrants,
perhaps because their home state doesn't get much of it, might easily
feel the "other" networks were right in giving the story no attention,
ergo FNC is doing it ONLY to further an agenda.

I submit that the only news reporting that might come close to being
felt to be totally fair and balanced would be a form that reports all
the facts of every story in every newscast. Read without sound-bites
and in a neutral tone.

But guess what would be missing?





An audience.<P ID="signature">______________
"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally." --W.C. Fields</P>

 

[doc9464]

> Whether FNC is exhibiting bias through the exposure of this
> subject
> (or any given subject) is a function of what any partular
> listener
> is interested in. There are many who feel the whole
> immigration
> issue IS important and to them keeping up with developments
> is
> essential. In their eyes (ears?) FNC is being fair. But,
> also
> to them the minimization or ignoring of the subject by other
>
> outlets constitutes outrageous bias.
>
> Somebody who really doesn't care about a heavy influx of
> immigrants,
> perhaps because their home state doesn't get much of it,
> might easily
> feel the "other" networks were right in giving the story no
> attention,
> ergo FNC is doing it ONLY to further an agenda.


Interesting point....to take the point about Fox's focus on certain news issues a step along....if one was to do a more recent detailed analysis of the material Fox covers as the organization (I believe it was FAIR - i could be wrong) did in a few years ago, one would be able to examine how closely Fox links its coverage of "current events" to issues deemed critical by the Republican party....this would be more accurate evidence of "bias" or "leanings".

It has been asserted that immigration will be this election cycle's "gay marriage" or "activist judge" issue de jour for the Republican party in the next year. It would be enlightening to discover if the alleged biases were very accurate.


> I submit that the only news reporting that might come close
> to being
> felt to be totally fair and balanced would be a form that
> reports all
> the facts of every story in every newscast. Read without
> sound-bites
> and in a neutral tone.
>
> But guess what would be missing?

> An audience.

Interesting point and here lies what is beginning to really show the undoing of news as News rather than fodder for ratings and support. Normally, I would laud the quality of the detail spent on "The Newshour" but political influence has now infiltrated the last bastion of quality, truly fair, truly balanced news cast. The CPB and its president, Tomlinson helped to eliminate the last source of stories that were detailed in their inspection of the issue. With the advent of CNN, Fox and other cable networks, there has been a clear move to television news as entertainment. The news departments were overhead, not profit centers for the longest time. The pressure from corporation CEO's that now own the major news outlets to make profits has reduced news to sound bites, flashy graphics, internal censorship in relation to not offending the current administration - mostly because they want media expansion. This has truly damaged the news....so unfortunately your point about the "missing audience" is very true these days.

I have faith that even with the damage done to the Newshour and the quiet C-SPAN network continues as the only untainted news resource on television. I believe they still have sufficient ratings..not high ones unfortunately As long as these two resources exist, I have faith that there will be some quality news to offset the drek coming from the MSM and the Conservative FOX, and the right-leaning MSNBC, and CNN networks.

Of course, smart Americans know to try all sorts of sources to get the understanding they seek...im going to hold on to that fantasy for now. If that were really true, we wouldn't be suffering through 8 years of Bush.

 

[Les]

> Interesting point....to take the point about Fox's focus on
> certain news issues a step along....if one was to do a more
> recent detailed analysis of the material Fox covers as the
> organization (I believe it was FAIR - i could be wrong) did
> in a few years ago, one would be able to examine how closely
> Fox links its coverage of "current events" to issues deemed
> critical by the Republican party....this would be more
> accurate evidence of "bias" or "leanings".

I wonder how much of the Fox selection of stories might be rooted
in audience research. I seriously doubt that they set about creating
a news channel without finding out what constitutes the overall
audience for the genre then exploring what portion of that base
likes what they presently hear/see and what part might like something
different.

Read that as trying to divine the various "biases" of the potential
audience. Once that was done would it not make sense, if the number
of "disaffected" were large enough, to tailor story selection to
attract those folks away from that with which they were unhappy or
only marginally happy?

It's hard for me to think of Murdoch and his associates as primarily
politicians. I feel they are astute business people whose loyalties,
if they have any (and that's analysis, not accusation) might not be
expected to follow the money.

> It has been asserted that immigration will be this election
> cycle's "gay marriage" or "activist judge" issue de jour for
> the Republican party in the next year. It would be
> enlightening to discover if the alleged biases were very
> accurate.

I disagree on two points but remember, I'm writing this after having
lived in California for nearly 2-years after 7-years in Alaska. In
California (and other southwestern states) illegal immigration is a
major hot-button issue and a very large number of Republicans feel
congress and Bush have NOT acted in the national interest. In
Alaska (the only other state where I feel at all in tune with voter
opinion) it's not that way. Immigration is ho-hum. There are lots
of new immigrants there but there are lots of jobs so there is no
feeling of their putting Americans out of work. Show me a state
where Spanish is becoming the primary language and there are
illegals standing on street corners looking for work and I'll show
you a state where illegal immigration is a red-hot issue. I'll
also show you a state where Republican incumbents are vulnerable
for not having done enough while in office. Never mind the promises!
What have you DONE?

Best thing I think the democrats could do is stonewall the issue;
let the Republicans hang themselves with their own party base.


Without extensive quoting...your post is immediately above and
anyone who feels the need can jump back and look at it...

I've been totally turned off by both local and network newscasts
for a year or more. Stories with an agenda are being overdone
with too many words, too many visuals, and are crowding out many
other stories that should be of interest. Both ways, left and
right. I don't turn on a newscast to see what's on the agenda.
I want to see what was going on while I was doing something
productive. "The Newshour" has traded meaningful insightful
reportage for long and boring same-subject stories. I can take
about 5-minutes it. But worse, even the BBC World news has fallen
into the excruciating-detail chasm. Fewer and fewer stories being
covered and those being covered all have a single focus which does
not change night by night.

And local news....just too cute for words when it isn't trying to
cover national stuff that either has just been or is about to be
flogged to death by their network.

Before the election I subscribed to the "Alcoholic America" theory
which said we needed to elect a candidate who would speed the rush
to a total economic crash. Then, like the alcoholic, hit rock
bottom, then we could get on with dragging outselves up outta the mud.
At the time I thought Kerry was the man but now it's clear that
he might have been equal to the task but Bush is getting us there
more quickly than Kerry ever could.

Problem is, the destination is the same and that mud is looking
stickier and deeper. So far I haven't seen any potential candidate
from either side who seems capable of doing anything other than
wallowing in the mud that's gonna be left behind for 2008!

<P ID="signature">______________
"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally." --W.C. Fields</P>

 

[dampier]

> Interesting point....to take the point about Fox's focus on
> certain news issues a step along....if one was to do a more
> recent detailed analysis of the material Fox covers as the
> organization (I believe it was FAIR - i could be wrong) did
> in a few years ago, one would be able to examine how closely
> Fox links its coverage of "current events" to issues deemed
> critical by the Republican party....this would be more
> accurate evidence of "bias" or "leanings".

You are right here. The natural response will be that Fox is just trying to serve their audience, which is Republican. Except they remain loathe to come out of the closet and admit that they a Republican news and issues channel, not comparable to MSNBC or CNN, although the latter two have tried to play "me too" on the conservative talk arena to try and garner ratings, and it has failed. How many chances does Tucker get?

What continues to irritate me about almost every panel show I've ever watched on mainstream media or on cable news is the total absence of a true liberal advocate guest. We get a parade of conservative magazine editors or policy instituters who show up on these shows who advocate their conservative views and the only counter that these shows feel necessary is to have one reporter - but the roles are not comparable. It's not the reporter's job to advocate the position of the other side, and they typically half-heartedly offer it as a "reported factual matter" but go silent when the conservative advocates attack it. The only exceptions I have seen here are Rachel Maddow on Tucker's show and to a lesser extent Eleanor Clift on McLaughlin (who is an editor at Newsweek).

Maddow could easily replace the horrid Rita Cosby on MSNBC and prove far more articulate (although less telegenic perhaps), but we still don't see a true liberal given a show even when the on hand conservatives don't draw flies.

> It has been asserted that immigration will be this election
> cycle's "gay marriage" or "activist judge" issue de jour for
> the Republican party in the next year. It would be
> enlightening to discover if the alleged biases were very
> accurate.

The whole "Minutemen" issue has filtered down from the nutty militia radio down into more mainstream conservative talk radio. Immigration is a valid issue, but is giving airtime to crrrrazy Minutemen to spew about illegal Mexicans doing the issue justice? They report, you decide.

> Interesting point and here lies what is beginning to really
> show the undoing of news as News rather than fodder for
> ratings and support. Normally, I would laud the quality of
> the detail spent on "The Newshour" but political influence
> has now infiltrated the last bastion of quality, truly fair,
> truly balanced news cast. The CPB and its president,
> Tomlinson helped to eliminate the last source of stories
> that were detailed in their inspection of the issue.

He's also tearing apart the credibility of the Voice of America, so he likes to spread it around.

> I have faith that even with the damage done to the Newshour
> and the quiet C-SPAN network continues as the only untainted
> news resource on television.

C-Span is definitely not a news network. At no time do the moderators ever question the validity of the points of view of their guests, and this is part of the myth that "fair and balanced" means absolutely equal time to every position (part of the "is the earth flat or round" example). A C-Span call-in show is a visit to the crrrrazy corner, especially when the GOP line is burning up with the anti-Israel anti-Zionist callers who turn up even on shows with a theme that has nothing to do with the issue of Israel. A lot of the calls on both sides are fringe, and frequently consist of obvious recitation of talking points for their respective positions, often incoherently presented.

 

[dampier]

> I wonder how much of the Fox selection of stories might be
> rooted
> in audience research.

I am sure this is part of it.

> It's hard for me to think of Murdoch and his associates as
> primarily politicians.

On this I see a lot more political mission than you do. Although Murdoch is no Richard Mellon Scaife or Rev. Moon, not one of his publications or television news channels exhibit anything but a conservative view on things. Fox entertainment television is a profit center that, when not being infiltrated with shows like Fox News Sunday, is not biased.

> I've been totally turned off by both local and network
> newscasts
> for a year or more. Stories with an agenda are being
> overdone
> with too many words, too many visuals, and are crowding out
> many
> other stories that should be of interest.

Far more annoying to me are news reports that are thinly disguised promos for network shows or stars or are drama enhanced with background music, or make the reporter part of the story (the Geraldo effect run wild). Newscasts at 6 seem to be resembling the morning and noon news more and more with enhanced filler, less content.

 

[doc9464]

I was surprised to see this article about an interview from David Schuster, formally of Fox....perhaps he can shed a little bit of light on our comments

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/02/column.1002-SH-A3_CMK35541.sto

your other points are interesting but I hadn't heard the alcoholic american issue before....can you elaborate why Us needs to hit bottom to recover...don't think China won't smell the blood when we crash....matter of fact they sense it now...and india is the other shark in the water....


> I wonder how much of the Fox selection of stories might be
> rooted
> in audience research. I seriously doubt that they set about
> creating
> a news channel without finding out what constitutes the
> overall
> audience for the genre then exploring what portion of that
> base
> likes what they presently hear/see and what part might like
> something
> different.

Heres a great piece of research from the Pew organization from last year on the status of news and where various groups, political and otherwise get their news
I think many know that Pew is non-partisan so their research can be vetted without controversy...notice where talk radio sits in the spectrum of various listeners...but also take in account the sources the party lines follow...and why....

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=833

>
> Read that as trying to divine the various "biases" of the
> potential
> audience. Once that was done would it not make sense, if
> the number
> of "disaffected" were large enough, to tailor story
> selection to
> attract those folks away from that with which they were
> unhappy or
> only marginally happy?
>
> It's hard for me to think of Murdoch and his associates as
> primarily
> politicians. I feel they are astute business people whose
> loyalties,
> if they have any (and that's analysis, not accusation) might
> not be
> expected to follow the money.
>
> > It has been asserted that immigration will be this
> election
> > cycle's "gay marriage" or "activist judge" issue de jour
> for
> > the Republican party in the next year. It would be
> > enlightening to discover if the alleged biases were very
> > accurate.
>
> I disagree on two points but remember, I'm writing this
> after having
> lived in California for nearly 2-years after 7-years in
> Alaska. In
> California (and other southwestern states) illegal
> immigration is a
> major hot-button issue and a very large number of
> Republicans feel
> congress and Bush have NOT acted in the national interest.
> In
> Alaska (the only other state where I feel at all in tune
> with voter
> opinion) it's not that way. Immigration is ho-hum. There
> are lots
> of new immigrants there but there are lots of jobs so there
> is no
> feeling of their putting Americans out of work. Show me a
> state
> where Spanish is becoming the primary language and there are
>
> illegals standing on street corners looking for work and
> I'll show
> you a state where illegal immigration is a red-hot issue.
> I'll
> also show you a state where Republican incumbents are
> vulnerable
> for not having done enough while in office. Never mind the
> promises!
> What have you DONE?
>
> Best thing I think the democrats could do is stonewall the
> issue;
> let the Republicans hang themselves with their own party
> base.
>
>
> Without extensive quoting...your post is immediately above
> and
> anyone who feels the need can jump back and look at it...
>
> I've been totally turned off by both local and network
> newscasts
> for a year or more. Stories with an agenda are being
> overdone
> with too many words, too many visuals, and are crowding out
> many
> other stories that should be of interest. Both ways, left
> and
> right. I don't turn on a newscast to see what's on the
> agenda.
> I want to see what was going on while I was doing something
>
> productive. "The Newshour" has traded meaningful insightful
>
> reportage for long and boring same-subject stories. I can
> take
> about 5-minutes it. But worse, even the BBC World news has
> fallen
> into the excruciating-detail chasm. Fewer and fewer stories
> being
> covered and those being covered all have a single focus
> which does
> not change night by night.
>
> And local news....just too cute for words when it isn't
> trying to
> cover national stuff that either has just been or is about
> to be
> flogged to death by their network.
>
> Before the election I subscribed to the "Alcoholic America"
> theory
> which said we needed to elect a candidate who would speed
> the rush
> to a total economic crash. Then, like the alcoholic, hit
> rock
> bottom, then we could get on with dragging outselves up
> outta the mud.
> At the time I thought Kerry was the man but now it's clear
> that
> he might have been equal to the task but Bush is getting us
> there
> more quickly than Kerry ever could.
>
> Problem is, the destination is the same and that mud is
> looking
> stickier and deeper. So far I haven't seen any potential
> candidate
> from either side who seems capable of doing anything other
> than
> wallowing in the mud that's gonna be left behind for 2008!
>

 

[Les]

> your other points are interesting but I hadn't heard the
> alcoholic american issue before....can you elaborate why Us
> needs to hit bottom to recover...don't think China won't
> smell the blood when we crash....matter of fact they sense
> it now...and india is the other shark in the water....

Your assessment of what might happen with China, India and
perhaps some other countries is right on.

Elaborating as you asked:

So long as the U.S. economy slides at a moderate pace the politicians
and professional hate-mongers will continue business as usual. Only
a sudden fall into depression with a crashed stock market, massive
unemployment and soup lines MIGHT convince folks to concentrate on
fixing things rather than manufacturing blame for relatively small
things in order to gain political advantage.

Then, when conditions are so bad you get that fleeting thought of:
"maybe we need to work on the problem as a nation" and that's the
time you can act quickly.

What's then required for a rebirth is a fast-moving coalition of
events similar to those immediately prior to World War II.
The Great Depression had technically ended but growth was
not spectacular. Political division in the country was rampant;
nobody could agree on anything.

But along came Hitler and, best of all, Japan. At that time The
U.S. was NOT by any means a superpower. Even a little bit
of bad luck would have those West of The Missippi speaking Japanese
and those East of same speaking German. Until, of course, those two
turned to fighting and made the U.S. their battlefield. Without an
enemy everybody could agree on the decline would have continued. It
was just convenient that the Japanese didn't look or talk like "us"
and thereby lent themselves to grotesque caricture in image (newspaper)
and word (radio...no TV then).

Of course there's no guarantee of a rebirth this time. Pre-WWII there
was an industrial base in The U.S. Sleeping though it was, it existed.
Today's "outsourcing" is nothing more than the logical continuation of
policies which, prior to WWII, saw The U.S. tearing up streetcar tracks
and selling the scrap iron cheap to Japan so it could rain back down
on our troops one day. Guess what? The factories we've been shipping
overseas (whether in fact or through letting them build new and tearing
ours down) aren't coming back and it'll take a long, long time to build
new ones.

And there's the need for speed in getting to the bottom of the toilet.
If things continue at the present pace more and more industrial capability
will be lost and recovery will be much more difficult.

With TV, far more than radio, (which really doesn't do "news" anymore)
being so politically polarized there's nobody giving attention to any
effort at unity. Yeah, a lot of what was done on radio and in print and
on motion picture film during WWII WAS propaganda, blatant propaganda,
government funded. And it kicked butts into action and got the war won.
In today's political climate any effort to mobilize the population would
be fought in every available courtroom, wakening gales of laughter in
________________(you fill in your enemy-country of choice).


> Heres a great piece of research from the Pew organization
> from last year on the status of news and where various
> groups, political and otherwise get their news
> I think many know that Pew is non-partisan so their research
> can be vetted without controversy...notice where talk radio
> sits in the spectrum of various listeners...but also take in
> account the sources the party lines follow...and why....
>
> http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=833

I left the link in for the convenience of those who might not have
read the prior post. I hadn't given any thought to Pew's place
in the political scheme of things and went in skeptical, having
seen their name associated with some left-leaning "documentaries".
Or is that perhaps just similar names? In any case, the study
really did seem, you should pardon the expression, fair and balanced.
Oddly, generally in agreement with my own analysis. An analysis,
I hasten to add, is in no way scientific and based entirely on
observation of folks and their discussions in public places. Didn't
even ask one person for their opinions...just eavesdropped on what
they were saying openly. Thank you for posting the link....most
instructive.<P ID="signature">______________
"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally." --W.C. Fields</P>

 

[Les]

> On this I see a lot more political mission than you do.
> Although Murdoch is no Richard Mellon Scaife or Rev. Moon,
> not one of his publications or television news channels
> exhibit anything but a conservative view on things. Fox
> entertainment television is a profit center that, when not
> being infiltrated with shows like Fox News Sunday, is not
> biased.

I'll grant that Murdoch and associates might have a strong
conservative streak but I think it's not doctrinaire enough
that, had their research shown the disaffected viewers did
not constitute a gold vein to be mined they would have done
something shown to have more profit potential.

I'd say more crass than political. And, in our capitalistic
society, crass is good. That they're not politicizing
entertainment shows sort of helps prove that point. They're
not out to further "the cause"; they're out to reap the bucks.

> Far more annoying to me are news reports that are thinly
> disguised promos for network shows or stars or are drama
> enhanced with background music, or make the reporter part of
> the story (the Geraldo effect run wild). Newscasts at 6
> seem to be resembling the morning and noon news more and
> more with enhanced filler, less content.

I'd probably agree if I watched any of that stuff but I quit
some time ago and now get my TV news fix by jumping from
channel to channel dropping out of any feature-length story
when I've had enough and finding somebody else with a different
story. Big problem is that they all seem to have synchronized
their commercial content.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally." --W.C. Fields</P>

 

[CrankyYankee]

> > If Fox News is really "fair and balanced", why do they have
> > to tell us so?
=======================================================================
> its a positioning statement that brands the product.
> marketing 101. it was determined by research that found a
> large segment of the population was being underserved by the
> existing cable news products(and other news media), and the
> primary reason was a PERCEPTION by that underserved market
> that the existing cable news products (and other media) were
> not fair and balanced. so fox is doing what any company
> does... finds a hole in the market, tell the people what
> they are giving to them and then give it to them. whether
> fox is fair and balanced is a perception, and THAT becomes
> the network's reality. all fox cares about is attracting the
> largest market share, and it appears they are doing that.
=========================================================================
That's a very good answer. Thank you.
<P ID="signature">______________
"What's That?" "French Horns!"

</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by CrankyYankee on 10/05/05 05:02 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[954]

The News Hole

> Somebody who really doesn't care about a heavy influx of
> immigrants,
> perhaps because their home state doesn't get much of it,
> might easily
> feel the "other" networks were right in giving the story no
> attention,
> ergo FNC is doing it ONLY to further an agenda.

Excellent point.

As an analogy, the mainstream media waste too much of the
news hole (I think that's just newspaper jargon, but I'm sure
there's a broadcast equivalent) on celebrity news: people I
never heard of and care nothing about. And they neglect the
important news coming out of Tallahassee and Washington.

I don't care about the people in Hollywood screwing each
other. I care about the people in power screwing US!

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>

 

[doc9464]

Well, we have had a few bumps but I can't disagree with one word....

we could have unified at 9/11. We could have unified after OKC. So on both sides opportunities were missed. The struggle to stay on top in technology, education, bio-technology, and education are far and beyond any political argument in the book......

Its going to take an upheaval...(and I understand the point now) to get us to move in somewhat of the same direction....

its a shame....i think about the Governor in Montana who called for $1 billion gov funding to run the coal to oil factory .....nada from congress or WH.

We could be so good....but again leadership makes the difference..we need a Kennedy "go the the moon" vision....or just some old fashioned common sense

We are lacking in that resource...and its less available to find than OIL...

> Elaborating as you asked:
>
> So long as the U.S. economy slides at a moderate pace the
> politicians
> and professional hate-mongers will continue business as
> usual. Only
> a sudden fall into depression with a crashed stock market,
> massive
> unemployment and soup lines MIGHT convince folks to
> concentrate on
> fixing things rather than manufacturing blame for relatively
> small
> things in order to gain political advantage.
>
> Then, when conditions are so bad you get that fleeting
> thought of:
> "maybe we need to work on the problem as a nation" and
> that's the
> time you can act quickly.
>
> What's then required for a rebirth is a fast-moving
> coalition of
> events similar to those immediately prior to World War II.
> The Great Depression had technically ended but growth was
> not spectacular. Political division in the country was
> rampant;
> nobody could agree on anything.
>
> But along came Hitler and, best of all, Japan. At that time
> The
> U.S. was NOT by any means a superpower. Even a little bit
> of bad luck would have those West of The Missippi speaking
> Japanese
> and those East of same speaking German. Until, of course,
> those two
> turned to fighting and made the U.S. their battlefield.
> Without an
> enemy everybody could agree on the decline would have
> continued. It
> was just convenient that the Japanese didn't look or talk
> like "us"
> and thereby lent themselves to grotesque caricture in image
> (newspaper)
> and word (radio...no TV then).
>
> Of course there's no guarantee of a rebirth this time.
> Pre-WWII there
> was an industrial base in The U.S. Sleeping though it was,
> it existed.
> Today's "outsourcing" is nothing more than the logical
> continuation of
> policies which, prior to WWII, saw The U.S. tearing up
> streetcar tracks
> and selling the scrap iron cheap to Japan so it could rain
> back down
> on our troops one day. Guess what? The factories we've
> been shipping
> overseas (whether in fact or through letting them build new
> and tearing
> ours down) aren't coming back and it'll take a long, long
> time to build
> new ones.
>
> And there's the need for speed in getting to the bottom of
> the toilet.
> If things continue at the present pace more and more
> industrial capability
> will be lost and recovery will be much more difficult.
>
> With TV, far more than radio, (which really doesn't do
> "news" anymore)
> being so politically polarized there's nobody giving
> attention to any
> effort at unity. Yeah, a lot of what was done on radio and
> in print and
> on motion picture film during WWII WAS propaganda, blatant
> propaganda,
> government funded. And it kicked butts into action and got
> the war won.
> In today's political climate any effort to mobilize the
> population would
> be fought in every available courtroom, wakening gales of
> laughter in
> ________________(you fill in your enemy-country of choice).
>
>
> > Heres a great piece of research from the Pew organization
> > from last year on the status of news and where various
> > groups, political and otherwise get their news
> > I think many know that Pew is non-partisan so their
> research
> > can be vetted without controversy...notice where talk
> radio
> > sits in the spectrum of various listeners...but also take
> in
> > account the sources the party lines follow...and why....
> >
> > http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=833
>
> I left the link in for the convenience of those who might
> not have
> read the prior post. I hadn't given any thought to Pew's
> place
> in the political scheme of things and went in skeptical,
> having
> seen their name associated with some left-leaning
> "documentaries".
> Or is that perhaps just similar names? In any case, the
> study
> really did seem, you should pardon the expression, fair and
> balanced.
> Oddly, generally in agreement with my own analysis. An
> analysis,
> I hasten to add, is in no way scientific and based entirely
> on
> observation of folks and their discussions in public places.
> Didn't
> even ask one person for their opinions...just eavesdropped
> on what
> they were saying openly. Thank you for posting the
> link....most
> instructive.
>